Gen Z falls for online scams more than their boomer grandparents do. The generation that grew up with the internet isn’t invulnerable to becoming the victim of online hackers and scammers.

You can say the title is clickbait, but that doesn't make it sensationalist. I feel like either you and I have totally different definitions of sensationalist, or you think the article is doing something it's not. The article does the following

1. Introduce a surprising fact: Zoomers fall for online scams more than Boomers do. This is surprising because a) Zoomers are online so much and would be expected to be innately familiar with such things and b) online scammers famously target the elderly, so much so that Boomers are almost stereotyped as being the victims of internet scams.

2. Add supporting details and discuss the source of the facts being discussed - specifically it introduces the Deloitte study, a 2023 report by Social Catfish, and the academic article I linked in my previous comment. These all help provide the concrete, factual basis for the article.

3. Highlights important findings from these sources that explains this phenomenon, including the centrality of mobile devices to the lives of Zoomers, how many popular apps have no real safeguards against predatory users or advertisers, and cultural or societal trends that might influence how Zoomers perceive their interactions with others on the internet.

4. Discusses how Zoomers can better protect themselves online and how, one can infer from the article, an adult or guardian could help Zoomers stay safe on the internet - such as by enabling safer settings or utilizing alternative browsers and ad blockers (things Zoomers might not innately think to do or know about), while also addressing some of the failures of large corporations and app developers to safeguard their users.

I'd like to know what part of that is sensationalist to you, because in my mind that is a remarkably by the numbers tech article.

Also, the data itself is not "BS" - it's something that is accurate, but has to be understood within a specific context. That's literally what the article is doing - contextualizing the information. You are saying it's sensationalizing the data. It's not. If anything it's doing the opposite. It's making the data more mundane by providing logical explanations for it.